Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] VAR whats worse waiting to celebrate a goal or going one down to an illegal goal?



nickjhs

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Apr 9, 2017
1,270
Ballarat, Australia
As the title says which is worse, suffering an illegal goal or waiting to celebrate a goal. I just read this https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/49223796 essentially Nuno is saying put up with mistakes in umpiring as it is in the spirit of the game. I am in favour of VAR but I am finding difficulty with the millimetre precision being applied to offside, but if we are going to have it then the Goal must be 100% legal. Maybe VAR should only consider clear and obvious offside IE if you need to get out the vernier calipers the goal stands, a bit subjective I know, but no different to handball rules.
 


Titanic

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,025
West Sussex
Does anyone know how they decide the precise moment when the ball is kicked? Given the minute detail they are going down to to measure the positions of the various bits of the players bodies, surely this is one of the most crucial parts of the process?
 


The Wizard

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2009
18,383
Not being able to see the ball nestle, look over at the linesman and see him with his flag down and absolutely go mental is going to take a lot away from the game IMO, I know people will say it’s important to get decisions right but it’s football as we know it losing a bit of it’s character and what I love about it for me.
 


Official Old Man

Uckfield Seagull
Aug 27, 2011
8,486
Brighton
Watching most of the footie shows over the weekend, waiting expectantly for the mere mention of the team in fourth place, and they seemed to highlight the Wolves & Man City incidents. In particular The Debate on Sky Sports had Merson and Andy Cole asking if ball to hand was now a penalty when looking at the Wolves incident. But at no time did they mention the Albion hand ball which, in my opinion based on the Wolves no goal, should have been a penalty.
Someone said at the time of Albions third that there was a delay whilst the fans waited for the ref to go to VAR.
 


SussexSeahawk

New member
Jun 2, 2016
152
Does anyone know how they decide the precise moment when the ball is kicked? Given the minute detail they are going down to to measure the positions of the various bits of the players bodies, surely this is one of the most crucial parts of the process?

I believe it is the first frame in which the foot/ whatever body part it is playing the pass is in contact with the ball.
 






SussexSeahawk

New member
Jun 2, 2016
152
So it is a subjective decision by someone looking at the screens?

Subjective is a bit of a misleading word there I think but yes is done by a person looking at a screen as far as I understand. There is potential for a mistake presumably if there is a frame that is particularly difficult to tell whether contact has started or not, but it is objective whether the foot is touching the ball or not in a given frame.
 


Titanic

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,025
West Sussex
Subjective is a bit of a misleading word there I think but yes is done by a person looking at a screen as far as I understand. There is potential for a mistake presumably if there is a frame that is particularly difficult to tell whether contact has started or not, but it is objective whether the foot is touching the ball or not in a given frame.

...which goes against the attacking side. I thought the intent previously with offside decisions was to encourage the attackers and give them the benefit of the doubt?
 




dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
Watching most of the footie shows over the weekend, waiting expectantly for the mere mention of the team in fourth place, and they seemed to highlight the Wolves & Man City incidents. In particular The Debate on Sky Sports had Merson and Andy Cole asking if ball to hand was now a penalty when looking at the Wolves incident. But at no time did they mention the Albion hand ball which, in my opinion based on the Wolves no goal, should have been a penalty.
Someone said at the time of Albions third that there was a delay whilst the fans waited for the ref to go to VAR.

Whoah there brother. You are confusing two different rules.

First, if a goal is scored and it has resulted from a handball in the area, then the goal is disallowed. It does not matter how the contact happened, position of the arm etc. ALL contact with the arm/hand which results in a goal (including providing an "assist") is a handball and the goal is disallowed.

But NOT all contact with the arm/hand in the box is a penalty. For a penalty, the arm must be in an unnatural position.
 


Postman Pat

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2007
6,971
Coldean
Watching most of the footie shows over the weekend, waiting expectantly for the mere mention of the team in fourth place, and they seemed to highlight the Wolves & Man City incidents. In particular The Debate on Sky Sports had Merson and Andy Cole asking if ball to hand was now a penalty when looking at the Wolves incident. But at no time did they mention the Albion hand ball which, in my opinion based on the Wolves no goal, should have been a penalty.

The quote on Soccer Saturday was that as Murray didn't "make his silhouette bigger" i.e. it would have hit him in the chest anyway, it wasn't handball, but would have been a penalty in the champions league.

I would prefer a similar process to cricket, manager gets one VAR challenge per half, if they are correct they keep it, if not they lose it. Otherwise we stick to ref and assistants decisions.
 


SussexSeahawk

New member
Jun 2, 2016
152
...which goes against the attacking side. I thought the intent previously with offside decisions was to encourage the attackers and give them the benefit of the doubt?

It helps the attacking side usually. The ball is in contact with the foot for several frames and instead of using the last they use the first. When a striker is making a run through on goal those extra few frames mean more strikers are onside than they would be otherwise.

If a striker is running at about 8m/s and the ball is in contact with the foot for about 0.1 seconds (that's a guess but seems plausible) then that would account for a difference of 0.8 metres which given the distance involved in some of the decisions is pretty significant. By taking the first frame, the striker would be onside significantly more than if they were using the last frame.
 




Brovion

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 6, 2003
19,322
Not being able to see the ball nestle, look over at the linesman and see him with his flag down and absolutely go mental is going to take a lot away from the game IMO, I know people will say it’s important to get decisions right but it’s football as we know it losing a bit of it’s character and what I love about it for me.

I agree. And why was that Sterling goal against WHU ruled out for offside? I appreciate that zooming in and getting the right millimetre-perfect decision is important when deciding who's won the men's Olympic 100 metres final, but getting an ultra-marginal offside decision 100% right in football is something that only pleases complete nerds. The spirit of the game matters just as much as the letter of the law; for offsides at least the VAR officials should only be given one or two seconds to look at the screen, and if it's not immediately obvious then the decision on the field of play should stand.
 


SussexSeahawk

New member
Jun 2, 2016
152
In particular The Debate on Sky Sports had Merson and Andy Cole asking if ball to hand was now a penalty when looking at the Wolves incident. But at no time did they mention the Albion hand ball which, in my opinion based on the Wolves no goal, should have been a penalty.

The reason for the Wolves handball was that it led to a goal and for some reason the directives are that any ball to hand that leads to a goal is a handball regardless of intention or where the hand is. The Murray one is about the silhouette as other posters have said and I think it's close as the hand is slightly outside the torso but maybe close enough to still be considered within his silhouette. Either way I think VAR was correct in not overturning it as I don't believe the Murray handball was clear and obvious.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Nov 15, 2008
31,763
Brighton
Watching most of the footie shows over the weekend, waiting expectantly for the mere mention of the team in fourth place, and they seemed to highlight the Wolves & Man City incidents. In particular The Debate on Sky Sports had Merson and Andy Cole asking if ball to hand was now a penalty when looking at the Wolves incident. But at no time did they mention the Albion hand ball which, in my opinion based on the Wolves no goal, should have been a penalty.
Someone said at the time of Albions third that there was a delay whilst the fans waited for the ref to go to VAR.

That's not how the current law works.

I can remember two goals - Suarez for Liverpool v Sunderland. Where the ball struck his arm and went in. It wasn't intentional, but it clearly struck his arm and went in. The officials didn't see that it struck his arm, and they got slaughtered for not seeing it and disallowing the goal. The idea that it wasn't intentional and therefore not 'deliberate handling' was ignored. People didn't care it was unintentional, he clearly gained an advantage from the handball, so it should have been struck off. There was a less contentious one with Newcastle (I want to say it was also against Sunderland), where the ball was swung in and the Newcastle forward leaned forward to meet it and nod the ball in, he missed it and it went in off his upper arm. Nobody spotted it, until much later with post game slomo replays. There was less outrage because it was so easy to miss, but there was still the attitude 'it should not stand' despite the lack of intent.

That attitude of 'it wasn't intentional, but he got a goal from it' has been added to the law. For the Wolves game the ball struck the arm and fell in a place that made it relatively simple for a Wolves player to get the ball first and shoot and score. That's why it was disallowed. Not simply because there was ball/hand/arm contact. If it drops and is cleared by a defender no one cares that it struck the arm. If the wolves player puts it wide, it's a goalkick. If the keeper saves it, the game continues on.

The only reason it was punished was because a goal came from it. A goal didn't come from the ball striking Murray's arm (and we can't really say he denied an obvious goal), and since he had his hand below shoulder height and the arms tucked into his body, was not deliberately handling the ball, it's not an offence.

I suppose the question becomes, if a Brighton player collects the ball from Murray's "handball" goes up the other end and scores, would it then become a penalty?
 




LlcoolJ

Mama said knock you out.
Oct 14, 2009
12,982
Sheffield
The quote on Soccer Saturday was that as Murray didn't "make his silhouette bigger" i.e. it would have hit him in the chest anyway, it wasn't handball, but would have been a penalty in the champions league.

I would prefer a similar process to cricket, manager gets one VAR challenge per half, if they are correct they keep it, if not they lose it. Otherwise we stick to ref and assistants decisions.
This is surely the way it will (or rather would) go according to common sense.

The cricket DRS system with umpire's call works really well. Especially now the review isn't lost for UC (which was a massive flaw).

Mind you, a caller on 606 the other night suggested it and Robbie Savage (while agreeing) clearly didn't understand what he was talking about. [emoji23]
 


LlcoolJ

Mama said knock you out.
Oct 14, 2009
12,982
Sheffield
I agree. And why was that Sterling goal against WHU ruled out for offside? I appreciate that zooming in and getting the right millimetre-perfect decision is important when deciding who's won the men's Olympic 100 metres final, but getting an ultra-marginal offside decision 100% right in football is something that only pleases complete nerds. The spirit of the game matters just as much as the letter of the law; for offsides at least the VAR officials should only be given one or two seconds to look at the screen, and if it's not immediately obvious then the decision on the field of play should stand.
Completely agree.
 


Gazwag

5 millionth post poster
Mar 4, 2004
30,093
Bexhill-on-Sea
I agree. And why was that Sterling goal against WHU ruled out for offside? I appreciate that zooming in and getting the right millimetre-perfect decision is important when deciding who's won the men's Olympic 100 metres final, but getting an ultra-marginal offside decision 100% right in football is something that only pleases complete nerds. The spirit of the game matters just as much as the letter of the law; for offsides at least the VAR officials should only be given one or two seconds to look at the screen, and if it's not immediately obvious then the decision on the field of play should stand.

Thing is the Men's 100m is easy to categorically say who won it as there is a photograph which shows it. I sort of get that a player is either offside or not offside but my gripe is everybody is jumping up and down says its black or white but (I think somebody else has said this on this thread) how accurate are they when deciding the exact point of time the ball is kicked. If they are a microsecond late making that decision then Sterling might have been onside.

Going back to Saturday, I was actually ok with VAR. It didn't stop be celebrating the goals and in fact there was a double celebration for the third goal. Four minutes injury time was the same as it would have been anyway.
 


Gazwag

5 millionth post poster
Mar 4, 2004
30,093
Bexhill-on-Sea
I suppose the question becomes, if a Brighton player collects the ball from Murray's "handball" goes up the other end and scores, would it then become a penalty?

I was wondering something similar on Saturday, how far back in the passage of play can a goal be disallowed. An example was a Brighton player might have been fouled on the half way line but the ref didn't blow, Watford then come forward on the attack. Had they scored following three or four passes and a pass to the winger who crosses the ball to a striker to score. Would VAR go all the way back to the half way line challenge or is that no longer material as the ball didn't go in the net until 7-8 passes later and plenty of chance for our players to win the ball back or block the cross.
 




Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Nov 15, 2008
31,763
Brighton
I was wondering something similar on Saturday, how far back in the passage of play can a goal be disallowed. An example was a Brighton player might have been fouled on the half way line but the ref didn't blow, Watford then come forward on the attack. Had they scored following three or four passes and a pass to the winger who crosses the ball to a striker to score. Would VAR go all the way back to the half way line challenge or is that no longer material as the ball didn't go in the net until 7-8 passes later and plenty of chance for our players to win the ball back or block the cross.

There was something about 'resetting the play' on the VAR special of 'The Debate' with one of the senior officials involved in rolling out VAR and training the refs - meaning, that is the furthest point back the review will go. I am struggling to think of the specific details of the example (they showed a few examples of various things), but there was a goal scored by Liverpool, I think, where there was an incident, the ball was crossed in from the right, saved and pushed out to the left and then was worked back in and was scored. The whole move was comfortable less than a minute, possibly less than 30secs. But play was 'reset' when that first cross was cleared. Because of this, the incident (think it was a foul, but could have been offside) was not reviewed because it occurred before the reset. Charlie Nicholas was not happy with that, and I can see his point.

If the ball falls direct to a brighton player who runs up and isn't troubled by a Watford player because they didn't get back in time, why would they reset the play?
 


Titanic

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,025
West Sussex
It helps the attacking side usually. The ball is in contact with the foot for several frames and instead of using the last they use the first. When a striker is making a run through on goal those extra few frames mean more strikers are onside than they would be otherwise.

If a striker is running at about 8m/s and the ball is in contact with the foot for about 0.1 seconds (that's a guess but seems plausible) then that would account for a difference of 0.8 metres which given the distance involved in some of the decisions is pretty significant. By taking the first frame, the striker would be onside significantly more than if they were using the last frame.

In other words... it is a lottery. :facepalm:
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here